Saturday, March 21, 2009

Once again I have descended below dreck into the living hull of the Knowa's Arkive and pulled one out of my assortment for your Saturday gnostalgia.

*****

Obama's finest speeches do not excite. They do not inform. They don't even really inspire. They elevate. They enmesh you in a grander moment, as if history has stopped flowing passively by, and, just for an instant, contracted around you, made you aware of its presence, and your role in it. He is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh, over color, over despair.... The tens of thousands of new voters Obama brought to the polls tonight came because he wrapped them in that experience, because he let them touch politics as it could be, rather than merely as it is. --Ezra Klein

A black man with a white mother became a savior to us. A black man with a white mother could turn out to be one who can lift America from her fall.... This young man is the hope of the entire world that America will change and be made better.... If you look at Barack Obama's audiences and look at the effect of his words, those people are being transformed. --Calypso Louis

Continuing with our analysis of the Devil Card, our Unknown Friend (UF) writes that the excesses of the left are always "owing to an intoxication of the will and imagination which engenders demons."

For example, if Marx and Engels had merely behaved as good Jews or Christians and "simply defended the interests of the industrial workers without having let themselves be carried away by their intoxicated imagination," then their ideas wouldn't have been so apocalyptically destructive. After all, every normal person wants to help the poor and needy, but it is axiomatic that helping the human animal while killing the human soul renders any spiritual benefit inoperative for both parties.

Further, as Schuon commented, "Progressivism is the wish to eliminate effects without wishing to eliminate their causes..." To paraphrase him the leftist wishes to make himself as useful as possible to a collectivity which renders the individual as useless as possible in the process. But

"one must never lose sight of the fact that there exists no higher usefulness than that which envisages the final ends of man. By its divorce from traditional truth... society forfeits its own justification, doubtless not in a perfunctorily animal sense, but in the human sense. This human quality implies that the collectivity, as such, cannot be the aim and purpose of the individual but that, on the contrary, it is the individual who, in his 'solitary stand' before the Absolute and in the exercise of his supreme function, is the aim of purpose of collectivity. Man, whether he be conceived in the plural or the singular, or whether his function be direct or indirect, stands like 'a fragment of absoluteness' and is made for the Absolute.... In any case, one can define the social in terms of truth, but one cannot define truth in terms of the social."

Moreover, the left always couches their supposed empathy for the downtrodden in fantastically broad and sweeping generalizations of historical "and even cosmic significance, such as the statement that God does not exist, that all religion is is only the 'opium of the people,' [and] that all ideology is only a superstructure on the basis of material interests." UF wrote that in the early '60s, but it is no different today, with the intoxication that fuels and pervades the Obama campaign:

"What we hear from Obama is the eternal mantra of the socialists; America is broken, millions have no health care, families cannot afford necessities, the rich are evil, we are selfish, we are unhappy, unfulfilled, without hope, desperate, poverty stricken, morally desolate, corrupt and racist. This nihilism is the lifeblood of all the democrat candidates.... When Michelle Obama claims she is only newly proud of her country, she does not exaggerate. In her world as in Obama's, they believe we are a mess, a land filled with the ignorant and unenlightened, filled with despair" (Fairchok).

Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes, not divine, but demonic. --Pope Benedict XVI

As UF writes, it is always a "matter of excess -- a going beyond the limits of competence and sober and honest knowledge," which the left never doubts, "having been carried away by the intoxicating impulse of radicalism, i.e. by a fever of the will and imagination to change everything utterly at a single stroke."

It is this fever dream of sweeping existential change that animates the left no less than the Islamists, since both deny the possibility of real spiritual change, which is an individual matter; in contrast, man's existential situation cannot be altered, only transcended.

As Lee Harris has written, a fantasy ideology such as Islamism is obviously not a rational response to the world arrived at in a logical, sober manner. Rather, it is a transformative belief, meaning that its primary purpose is to psychologically transform the person who believes the fantasy. And believing the fantasy is an end in itself -- it has no purpose other than to make the fantasy seem like reality -- like it might actually be true. Therefore, the real reason for 9-11 wasn't actually to bring down western civilization. Rather, it was for the Islamists to deepen their trance.

Likewise, anyone with a basic familiarity with economics knows that leftist ideas don't just fail, but backfire. They cause all sorts of unintended consequences that the leftist never connects to the original policy -- e.g., how the welfare state eroded the structure of the black family, how racial quotas inevitably harm blacks, how rent control causes housing shortages, how subsidizing higher education simply drives up the cost, how nationalized health leads to rationing, and how forcing banks to make bad loans to unqualified people is at the epicenter or today's economic problems.

Now, UF explains that the virtue of temperence protects us from the intoxicating counter-inspiration of radical fantasies -- including religious fantasies, which are not actually religious but manmade. As such, it is foolish to blame God or religion for things that emanate from the lower vertical in man.

UF makes the subtle point that one cannot engender a positive collective mind parasite. This is related to the principle that the mind parasite is an effect of "congealed" or "coagulated" psychic energy. As a result, it always "enfolds," whereas the good radiates. The former is an inward, contracting movement, whereas the latter is an expansive, radiant movement. This may sound overly abstract, but we are all familiar with the ontologically closed world of the left, whether it is their elite university campuses or the op-ed page of the New York Times. If you approach these things with your activated cʘʘnvision, you can literally experience them as a sort of dense, black hole of "inverse radiation."

Now, why did people respond to, say, Ronald Reagan? For the opposite reason -- the radiant positive energy of which he was a mere vehicle. This only became more apparent when placed side by side with Jimmy Carter's withered and constipated presence.

I suppose the novel thing about Obama is that he is selling the same constipation, but with a kind of cheap and meretricious radiation that one must be intoxicated to appreciate. Indeed, as Fairchok writes,

"That is his appeal; he is [ironically] an actor, a performer, a cinematic presence that stirs simple emotions, emotions that have little grounding in truth. His speeches are the inane lyrics to a popular song that endures only because it has a great beat. One must not think too deeply on what Obama says, for it turns to smoke and disappears in the light of day. Ezra Klein is correct, Obama's speeches do not inform, they pander, they propagandize, they harmonize with the mythology of despair and the chimera of entitlement. As his hagiographies proclaim, he represents a new Camelot, but one that does not hold America quite so precious, a Camelot of globalists, moral relativists and communitarians."

Now, how to drive out a demon? Easy. As UF explains, "Light drives out darkness. This simple truth is the practical key to the problem of how to combat demons. A demon perceived, i.e. on whom the light of consciousness is thrown, is already a demon rendered impotent.... A demon rendered impotent is a deflated balloon." And the most recent Rasmussen survey indicates that this balloony tune is on a flaccid trip from omnipotence to impotence in record time.

The lords of Falsehood hold, at present, almost complete sway over poor humanity. Not only the lower life-energy, the lower vital being, but also the whole mind of man accepts them. Countless are the ways in which they are worshipped, for they are more subtle in their cunning and seek their ends in variously seductive disguises. The result is that men cling to their falsehood as if it were a treasure, cherishing it more than even the most beautiful things of life. Apprehensive of its safety, they take care to bury it deep down in themselves; but unless they take it out and surrender it to the Divine they will never find true happiness.

Indeed the very act of bringing it out and showing it to the Light would be in itself a momentous conversion and pave the way to the final victory. For the laying bare of each falsehood is in itself a victory -- each acknowledgment of error is the demolition of one of the lords of Darkness. --The Mother, Conversations on Yoga

79 Comments:

"What we hear from Obama is the eternal mantra of the socialists; America is broken, millions have no health care, families cannot afford necessities, the rich are evil, we are selfish, we are unhappy, unfulfilled, without hope, desperate, poverty stricken, morally desolate, corrupt and racist. This nihilism is the lifeblood of all the democrat candidates.... When Michelle Obama claims she is only newly proud of her country, she does not exaggerate. In her world as in Obama's, they believe we are a mess, a land filled with the ignorant and unenlightened, filled with despair"

As they saw this nation, so it is becoming under their stewardship. If nothing else, Obama's presidency serves as a reminder that the vision of our chosen leaders truly shapes who we are. I think a lot of people live under the assumption that it doesn't really matter (to their own lives, way down at the individual level) who's in the hot seat; that one man is just as good as another, more or less, as far as the average American is concerned. We are now learning the harsh lesson that it does matter. The POTUS is more than just an honorary title that comes with opportunities to travel and make pretty speeches, but even those speeches are crucial. What he says (especially when unscripted) translates directly into who we are, though not always in the ways one would expect; it is one of the mysteries of leadership.

If this were a movie, it would be like a bad slasher flick. You can see the danger from miles away, but the ditzy, starry-eyed coed ignores all the obvious warning signs and runs, half-naked and heaving-bosomed, straight into the lair of her waiting doom. Where she promptly gets brutally slaughtered. Or (a la the recent run of torture films) first slowly and methodically tortured, broken (physically and mentally) and dismembered, until she's begging for death.

Except that this movie would be so hackneyed, poorly-acted, cliched and predictable that people would be walking out within the first ten minutes.

I knew this presidency was going to be tough on the country, but who would ever have thought it would be so spectacularly bad?

Yet For Pres. Obama it seems that his teleprompter is an indispensable tool, an indispensable crutch, through which Pres. Obama can communicate to the American public without reaching into his own memory, coming in touch with his own anger and his own malice and unwitting expressing that anger and malice to the American public. Sociopathic Pres. Clinton was far better at masking his narcissistic anger in public. That Pres. Obama might need such a crutch causes me to wonder why. President Obama seems to have been sufficiently articulate sans teleprompter when he met with the head of the American Legion and insisted that wounded and disabled veterans look to private sources as the first providers for their health care and rehabilitation.

Consider, Pres. Obama decided to subsidize Iran's terrorist operations by proxy and Islamic State building in Gaza to the tune of $800 million and then less than a month later he insists on cutting medical care for wounded veterans because he insists that he needs to save $540 million! It is breathtaking...

Speaking of Islam, mind parasites & black holes of "inverse radiation", Raymond Ibrahim (author of The Al Qaeda Reader, translations of religious texts and propaganda) has Jihad, Martyrdom, and the Torments of the Grave up on VDH's Private Papers.

The tens of thousands of new voters Obama brought to the polls tonight came because he wrapped them in that experience, because he let them touch politics as it could be, rather than merely as it is. --Ezra Klein

>>. . . the most recent Rasmussen survey indicates that this balloony tune is on a flaccid trip from omnipotence to impotence in record time<<

Absolutely, but watch for the Oballoonies to circle the wagons around their punctured savior like crazy. And when the nit really gets gritty, they'll be playing the race card, the whole deck, probably, like never before.

I don't know. I am personally moved that Obama is going to directly take on the entrenched special interests of the liberal educational establishment. It's about time someone broke up the Teacher's Union and extricated us from its death grip on education policy.

The smartest Aktor forgot that part, I guess…like the other night. What’s his line? Oh yes…it’s actually not cool to pretend to make fun of yourself by suggesting that when bowling you may look as uncool as those, you know…Blabber-mouth, Leno. Can’t trust him.No appearances forrryou. One yearrr!Sorry, Mr Precedent

I am not sure president 0 ever says anything he really means. His talk on education policy sounds like he wants to put power back in the hands of states and local boards. But does he? Might he not work to undermine teachers unions (or more accurately to co-opt them) while consolidating power in the Dept. of Education? That would fit his world view and pattern far more than any move to give more power to citizens. Of course there would be window dressing for the masses that would purportedly demonstrate a return of power to the states. But you can bet that the purse strings will be tightly held in D.C. and that some kind of overarching policy will be implemented requiring tight federal supervision (for the "good of the children"). I simply don't believe he would willingly relinquish any power now held or forego any that he thinks he can sieze in the future.

... the left always couches their supposed empathy for the downtrodden in fantastically broad and sweeping generalizations of historical "and even cosmic significance, such as the statement that God does not exist...

You're a fine one to talk. Surely we can agree that "god exists" and "god does not exist" are equally sweeping? Not to mention your gross generalizations about "the left", which apparently includes over half the US population.

rent control causes housing shortages...I'm avoiding debating particular issues here, because it is boring and futile, and at least on this one I'm of two minds. But I can't resist pointing out that rent control is properly understood as a conservative position, in that it is an effort to preserve existing social relationships from the radical destabilization of the free market.

I know you folks are enamored of Michael Polanyi (for reasons I don't quite grasp -- when I read him, quite a while back, I remember him as an anti-objectivist sociologist of science, aligned with the dreaded postmodernists). But you should read his brother Karl's work on socioeconomic history The Great Transformation, which certainly transformed me when I encountered it.

Now, why did people respond to, say, Ronald Reagan? ..."That is his [Obama's] appeal; he is [ironically] an actor, a performer,a cinematic presence that stirs simple emotions, ....

It is a bit difficult to believe someone could accuse Obama of being "a cinematic presence" in a post that praises Reagan, who was an actual cinematic presence. Do you people have no ability to self-reflect whatsoever? Let's not even get into the crude stagings of the recently-departed Commander Codpiece. All politicians are performers. Some are better performers than others, some are mere performers and nothing else. And they all stir emotions, positive and negative. My own positive emotional reaction to Obama is relativelysedate, but I'm fascinated by the negative reactions he stirs up on the right. You folks seem quite deranged.

Obama is no radical, he's a pragmatic centrist who seems more like Bill Clinton every day, and works and plays well with the existing power structure. Far from implementing massive transformations, he's backing off from positions that are sensible but apparently too radical for the American public: positions like single-payer health care, prosecuting Bush administration war crimes, and pulling out of our various imperial ventures. What would you guys do if by some miracle an actual radical was elected president?

"Ignorance, rutting alongside abysmal writing, runs rampant in the political commentary section of the blogosphere. Poorly framed arguments, saturated with delusional thought particles, pass as truth telling for this thick skulled band of inept thinkers. Toss them a candle to judge the depth of the hole they’re pointlessly digging and you’ll get dirt clods angrily chucked in your face. The clear light of fact or reason elicits spittle filled rage and insane accusations.

"These colossal fuck-trumpets, clutching fat, primary colored crayons, have no desire to scan the horizons for a clue; picking their toes serves as sufficient inspiration to wield a limited vocabulary and lack of cogent reasoning skills like a sack of putrid dead cats. Perusing the tedious droppings of these quarter-wits is akin to fighting your way through a dry stack of bethorned snatch, covered in clouds of endless bramble. Nimble mental acuity is an attribute usually required to appreciate humor, subtlety, sarcasm or truth, a quality in scant supply judging by the nonsensical reams of pseudo-serious dribble and simplistic syntax passed off as thoughtful insight by these fumbling dolts.

"Skipping over these shallow puddles of mind numbing stupidity is highly recommended. They’re nothing more than dark boxes of brain rot unfit for agile minds."

mtcraven said "rent control causes housing shortages...I'm avoiding debating particular issues here, because it is boring and futile, and at least on this one I'm of two minds. "

You give yourself far too much credit there. For example:

"But I can't resist pointing out that rent control is properly understood as a conservative position, in that it is an effort to preserve existing social relationships from the radical destabilization of the free market."

If there was even half a mind involved in that statement, it was the comatose half.

Never mind that no conservative actually favors rent control. Remember, for the leftist, the narrative is true, not the facts.

Likewise, the unprecedented government takeover of the economy is not radical, just... working within the existing power structure... until we can rewrite American history with the blood of this bourgeoisie power structure.

"The Spirit grieves and suffers with creation, not only with those sufferings in natural process but also in the new ways brought about by sin. Beacuse of it creation groans in travail, but Spirit keeps hope alive in humanity even in the midst of suffering. Such sufferings are the birth pangs of a new creation, when we along with creation are united with the life of God. Despite everything, Spirit persists toward the goal of freeing us along with the universe (Rom 8:23).The origin of evil is a great mystery, but it will be resolved -- not altogether now, but in the future by the action of God. The world is incomplete and unredeemed at present, and we can find no adequate answer to evil in its totality. This will require the fulfillment glimpsed in the resurection of Jesus Christ, where God takes responsibility for the world and offeres humanity hope.

(Clark is not waiting for the Jesus-person to anounce his "I'm back!")

In the meantime, providence often has a scandalous appearance. Babies are massacred in Bethlehem with no one to rescue them. God's Son cries out in agony in Gethsemane and from the cross -- and hears silence. God's heart is broken , but he does not act in the hoped for way. There is something posing a threat to God's rule, to a certain extent limiting what God can do as ruler of the world. Therefore God does not now eliminate suffering but redeems by means of it."

Flame of LOve, C. Pinnock -published in 96'.

In the same vein, tho I can't say who wrote the following, here goes something I scribled while back.

"Mahavatar Babajis role on earth is to be "in constant communion with Christ; together they send out vibrations of redemption, and have planned the spiritual technique of salvation for this age. The work of these fully -illumined masters - one with the body, and one without it - is to inspire the nations to forsake suicidal wars, race hatreds, religious sectarianism, and the boomerang evils of materialism. Babaji is well aware of the trend of modern times, especially of the influence and complexities of Western civilization, and realizes the neccessity of spreading the self - liberations of yoga equally in the West and in the East."

10. Didn't get permission of France to defend ourselves.9. Liberated 50 million Muslims from allies of the left.8. Wouldn't let liberal media desecrate bodies of returning soldiers.7. Wouldn't alter Geneva Code to accommodate illegal combatants.6. Pursued war despite congress not cutting off funding.5. Didn't bribe as many crappy fourth-rate countries to join coalition as did his father.4. Used waterboarding to obtain information about active terrorist plots.3. Doesn't believe that the cause of terror is fighting it.2. Once used the word "crusade."1. Thinks human beings actually prefer liberty over tyranny.

There are only a few radio stations where I live, so today, not wanting to listen to Ducks Baseball nor a call-in show about guns, I tuned to my other option which broadcasts Air America. It was very educational!

For instance, I learned that we've got it all wrong about The Prez -- that what he's trying to do is "spread out the government" so that it's "more transparent," and so that it will "meet the people half-way." That way, they said, we'll feel more like relating to the government, and won't be afraid to approach it. So, now I understand.

Having said that, they went on to explain about how Cheney had a CIA "assassination squad" operating out of his office, and how his Chief of Staff said he intended to turn the Constitution into "a fascist manifesto." Whoa! I didn't know these things before! At least now I'm informed ...

Jeeze, can't you people make an effort to make a cogent argument before descending into poo-flinging behavior? Your host is full of gassy encomiums to human uniqueness, but you are behaving like pack of gibbons repelling an intruder. Hoot hoot.

Re war crimes: The International Committee of the Red Cross, charged with enforcing the Geneva Conventions, has found that torture of prisoners has taken place at Guantanamo. Evidence suggests this was approved from the highest levels of the Bush administration, although a proper inquiry is required to make certain. Torture is a violation of the international and US law. The use of torture in war is a war crime. It's really not that complicated, and you don't have to be a member of the radical left to believe the Bush administration is guilty -- you can be a retired Major General, for instance.

no conservative actually favors rent controlThis is true, but just points out how the conservative movement is not really conservative in any principled sense, but is instead a mere shill for privilege.

Speaking of spying on psychiatrists, I've actually treated a few patients who truly believed the kinds of nutty things dumped here by mtraven and previous angry trolls. Every one required medication, although they were the last to recognize it (I'm not suggesting that they all do, just the ones I've seen).

Most people are surprisingly apolitical. And there are lots of people who believe the crazy stuff in a passive "fashionable nonsense" way. But the true believers are nuts, and it is almost impossible to help them until their life runs aground for some other reason. They cling to their mind parasites like life rafts.

Dr. Godwin, are you suggesting that a Muslim terrorist would lie to one of our useful idiots of the Red Cross? If so, then you are the one that needs medication. Not to mention re-education. Next thing you know, you'll be suggesting that Andrew Sullivan has AIDS-related dementia.

Bob, even I have to call you out on that one. There's no medication in the world that could ever render Sean Penn, Bill Maher, Michael Moore, Rosie O'Donnell, Randi Rhodes, Glen Greenwald, Keith Olbermann, or Seymour Hersh sane.

In the case of the "Ring of Fire" program, which is as whacked-out as they get outside of an actual strait-jacket, I listen closely for some sort of "sign," that they're just putting on an act, just playing to the audience ....

But, NO! These are true believers! It is all lumped together in a stream of wild rhetoric, completely incongruent, and except that one can recognize the language as English, completely incoherent.

I spoke with a woman yesterday like that -- literally crawlin' with mind parasites: every single thing she said was negative, bitchy, accusatory, complaining -- and as I told her "Welp, gotta go! Tight schedule, you know" and moved toward my vehicle, she waved and said, "Come back when you can hang out for awhile!"

"Jeeze, can't you people make an effort to make a cogent argument before descending into poo-flinging behavior?"

meh. Why? You've already demonstrated that your positions are inflexible. Furthermore, you go out of your way to come here and try to pick a fight with people who strongly disagree with you, whom you have a history of insulting, whom you have already decided are poo-flinging nutjobs. Even if we took the time to argue cogently with you, the result would essentially be a back and forth of you saying "nuh-uh, you're wrong!" and us replying "No, based upon this, that and the other historical evidence we are inclined to disagree," followed by more of you saying, "Nuh-uh! 'Cuz this guy that I think is just like you said something different. Take that! Pbbbbt!"

And really, we've done that dance far, far too many times. It gets old. As Bob said the other day, what's the point of pumping bullets into zombies when they just refuse to die? After a while, the shoulder gets sore, the arm gets tired, and the ears start to ring. But if by throwing poo the zombies actually get disgusted and leave, well, who are we to disparage what's effective?

Or if you'd prefer the short answer, mtraven, you just aren't worth the effort.

mtcraven said "Jeeze, can't you people make an effort to make a cogent argument before descending into poo-flinging behavior? "

When presented with a steamy fools poo platter such as "no conservative actually favors rent controlThis is true, but just points out how the conservative movement is not really conservative in any principled sense..."

It will be flung back, swiftly and with delight. Nothing disperses the stench of stupidity so well as a fling and a smile.

Walt, I've made a few "friends" that way in the past - they think that because you're polite, you must actually enjoy listening to them froth at the mouth. I find that if you have to be in their vicinity, it's a good way to practice subtle evasive maneuvers :)

Julie said:You've already demonstrated that your positions are inflexible.Just because you have not been able to change my position does not mean that it is inflexible. It could mean your arguments aren't any good.

you go out of your way to come here and try to pick a fight with people who strongly disagree with you, whom you have a history of insulting, whom you have already decided are poo-flinging nutjobs.

Well...I am picking a fight, to be sure. But I'm looking for an argument, that is, something using evidence, logic, and rhetoric in an adversarial style. Counter-arguments are those that attack the evidence, logic, etc of the other side. If you look at the first comment I made today, there are several potentially interesting points, any of which you may of course feel free to disagree with by addressing their content. Instead what I got was:"Ignorance, rutting alongside abysmal writing, runs rampant in the political commentary section of the blogosphere. Poorly framed arguments, saturated with delusional thought particles, pass as truth telling for this thick skulled band of inept thinkers."Now, I use an occasional insult myself. Probably I should break myself of the habit. But I don't think I ever result to pure, content-free invective in a debate. That's the sort of thing that I call poo-flinging. It's the sort of behavior displayed by those who are either unwilling or unable to defend their positions rationally.

You are right, continuing these delightful exchanges is probably not worth the effort.

mtcraven said "But I'm looking for an argument, that is, something using evidence, logic, and rhetoric in an adversarial style."

Try making one first. Look it up, an argument doesn't consist of quips, links and assertions.

"If you look at the first comment I made today, there are several potentially interesting points, any of which you may of course feel free to disagree with by addressing their content."

'Potentially interesting'... uhm... no. At best they provoke a sense of embarrassment for you, but they don't rise to the level of interesting. I won't press you for logic, you've so far been unable to string two 'points' together that didn't rely on cheap equivocations. You seem only to be able to accuse and insult, never rebut, or define, but you really should go back and at least read up on some rhetorical pointers, see if you can't get the hang of making an argument for any of your 'positions' (careful of those pesky ‘first principles’ though, they can really trip you up).

There's nothing of interest in what you've said so far to pursue.

If you want to have an actual argument, how about stating your case for why 'pragmatic' behavior (do you understand what 'pragmatic' means?), working and playing "well with the existing power structure", is nothing to be concerned about? How about explaining how it is ok to promise an open and 'transparent' process, to go 'line by line' through all bills, and then turn around and force through a massive bill, which no one, including himself, had even read... and signing it! How should behavior like that not be in the least bit alarming? How about explaining how threatening the validity of contracts, of property rights, should be thought of as no big deal? Or better yet, how about explaining what YOUR concept of rights are, and why they are not threatened by 'pragmatic' behavior and a penchant for hiring tax cheats into high government office?

We already gave you an opportunity to state your case, you didn't. And I don't of course expect any reply from you now, that will amount to anything resembling an argument for those positions, because you've given no reason to suspect you of being anything other than a lazy two-bit cynic who validates himself through sneering at others positions, while never bothering to understand, develop or substantiate his own ideas.

Do us all a favor, take your poo, and run back to your site, where you can fling it without a care.

"You are right, continuing these delightful exchanges is probably not worth the effort."

If you look at the first comment I made today, there are several potentially interesting points...

Really? I didn't notice any. As to the rest of the points you just made, see my original response. Which I only bothered with because you specifically asked why we don't take the time to argue logically with you. In fact, even in making this second response, I must abashedly acknowledge that I am, in fact, engaging in yet another exercise in futility, and should probably check in the mirror for the appearance of donkey ears in place of my raccoon mask.

What I find ironic is that the first black President's "social justice" agenda will finally push the people of this country entirely over the cliff into economic slavery to the State. We'll be working to finance the communitarian utopian visions of the enlightened ones. Their policies will run the economy further into the ground which will be proof to them that they haven't done enough. And by the time it's all over they'll have their controlling hands in every aspect of our lives and we'll be paying them to do it. Obama criticizes the Bush administration for reckless spending then ups the ante fourfold. Even Putin warned him not to go where he's headed. But morons like mtraven can't see that the bill will eventually have to be paid and call him a centrist. They think he's cutting taxes because he says so.Obama is going to keep pushing his cap and trade energy policy (tax), education (tax)and healthcare (tax) "reforms" as the solutions to our current economic problems while at the same time putting band aids on the real problems and mandating government oversight with each band aid he administers. He's turning the screws on business and digging government control ever deeper into the private sector by using the angry gullibility of the populace and the greed of business people who should have said screw your money, I'll go bankrupt and start over a free man.It's straight out of FDRs playbook. As I see it, the role of government is to insure my liberty, that is the furthest thing from what's happening here.All anyone had to do was to read either of his books with a clear and open mind to see what was going to happen were he elected.

Van,Exactly.I long for the days when the dems considered 12 years of broken UN resolutions,18 months of debate, 24/7 media coverage a “rush to war”. Not to mention when they thought 82 billion was a lot of money even though it was for such a minor thing like support the troops while the enemy’s at their throats. That very lengthy, very public poo-fling was a war crime against our own troops if you consider what it did to embolden the enemy and weaken the Commander in Chief when the country is at war. Oh…it was at war alright…

82 billion…they don’t even round down to 100 billion now… unless your talking about evil cigar-smoking capitalists – then 162 million is the world’s most unacceptable figure. And don’t you forget it.Million? What’s a million?

Hoarhey,It is interesting how these types tell you exactly what they are going to do to you, right before they do it to you. When he said “spread the wealth” to Joe the Plumber… I’ll even include the comment on Leno the other night about Special Olympic athletes…these things just roll right off his tongue. It’s strange how he seems unaware of how a normal person might be affected by comments like these - not to mention he should be just as revolted. Or is he unaware..

I think with Clinton at least, had he slipped with comments like these, his handlers would have taken him aside later and said, “listen, you can’t say stuff like that out loud. You’re gonna give us away.”

Either O’s handlers need handlers, or maybe this is the transparency he was talking about. They ‘won’ and it’s just not necessary to cover these things up anymore. This is a dreary sitrep on the culture war.

However, I’m continually amazed that the DOW is as high as it is – when you consider the daily assault on “We the producers” (which is by its nature fierce with competition) and the chaotic surge at our backside by our own government. I’m also amazed like Sayet the other day, that we let such a small set of punks push us around like this. We the producers weren’t raised like this. We’re not like those other countries. Socialism hasn’t technically touched-down yet and we’re already retching.

You people showcase your own mind parasites by dissecting Obamism so deftly while unwilling to apply even a modicum of this ability to "The Right". The high art of kvetching is a sport of ego, not spirit. Most of the cleverness of the assemblage here is a result of the same emotional fervor you despise when rooted out of the "enemy". The only truth in this post is that no one is immune from the foibles of ego.

Poor retmarut seems to have lost his identity there, somehow the 'reality based community' always seems to have such difficulty staying in touch with reality.

Anyway, it sniped that "...unwilling to apply even a modicum of this ability to "The Right"."

Riiight. And no one here ever had any comments about Bush's education bill, medicare, immigration, weak dealings towards leftist states such as North Korea, or Iran, the bailouts.... The truth is, leftism is a disease that renders you impervious to reality, and are unable to see what you haven't accepted as being so. Kant would have been proud... or at least would have tried to use you as examples of accomplishing his philosophical goals "I have found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith"

mtcraven, as I said, you use equivocations as a child uses ‘wild cards’ in poker. If you wish to use ‘conservative’ as you catch-all for whatever meaning you wish to isolate it to and ascribe to it … you are only performing an act of … uhm… mental self-satisfaction, and I’ve no interest in joining you.

On the off, off, off chance that you are interested in actually thinking about the issue, first look at what we’ve said over and again, we only describe ourselves here as ‘Conservative’ in the sense of seeking to conserve the ideals of classical liberalism, such as were held by the Founders of this nation.

If you wish to see positions of conservatives, which hold to that meaning, you should be able to grasp them through this from Frederich Bastiat (circa approx. 1840’s), or Thomas Sowell circa 1999.

If you are interested and able to intelligently examining the issue, you will make it plain by your response… which will bear no resemblance to your previous responses. If not, no need to answer further, or link back to any further exercises in stupidity, such as your latest link.

"We can have no motive to desire his visit, it is he who desires to see us and who therefore must make himself intelligible and acceptable"

I and most of the readers here are conservatives because we are liberal. In contrast, there is no one so "conservative" and reactionary as a leftist living in a rent-controlled Manhattan apartment and holding tenure. Talk about a movement that seeks only to preserve illegitimate privilege!

If you wish to use ‘conservative’ as you catch-all for whatever meaning you wish to isolate it to and ascribe to it...

I'm not. I'm being perfectly clear about how I am using 'conservative'. There is the Burkean sense of wanting to preserve settled social relationships, and there is the modern sense in use by the Republican party and its supporters, which means being in the tank for rampant statism, corruption, and plutocracy. My commentary is how poorly those two match up, how even the Burkean conservatives were never about actually conserving all social relations, and how the free market is anything but conservative.

we only describe ourselves here as ‘Conservative’ in the sense of seeking to conserve the ideals of classical liberalism

And you're accusing me of playing fast and loose with meanings? That is not what 'Conservative' means to most people. To be sure, the conservative movement has attempted to cloak itself in the mantle of classical small-government liberalism, but that was always a total sham and the fraudulent nature of this marketing effort is obvious to anyone with half a brain at this point.

As I already said, anyone who is enthusiastic about state-sponsored torture has permanently given up their right to call themselves a classical liberal.

"If you wish to use ‘conservative’ as you catch-all for whatever meaning you wish to isolate it..." (sic)

"If you wish to see positions of conservatives, which hold to that meaning, you should be able to grasp them through this..." (sic)

"If you are interested and able to intelligently examining the issue, you will make it plain by your response…" (sic)

Cant is well satisfied with you to, er, two, er, too (never mind. You surely understand my point without my needing to make it, right? After all, it's MY POINT, right? Obvious to all, RIGHT?) brother! I see why W is held in such high regard in these here parts.

This one though stands as a shining example of Vanism(Who, Me?)at its finest: ...you are only performing an act of … uhm… mental self-satisfaction, and I’ve no interest in joining you.

Of course. So easy to mistake rambling diatribe for unconsious self parody. Now I see you were only trying to avoid premature kneejerkulation.

Well, at least we agree on one thing. Anyone with half a brain thinks I cloak myself in the fraudulent mantle of classical small-government liberalism in order to conceal my rampant statism, corruption, and plutocracy.

“. There is the Burkean sense of wanting to preserve settled social relationships, and there is the modern sense in use by the Republican party and its supporters, which means being in the tank for rampant statism, corruption, and plutocracy..”

Half-assed. In response the portion that is only a partial moon, Burkewas a true Liberal, he considered tested and proven traditions to have worth because they were tested and proven, he disapproved of and opposed the spirit of clever innovations such as Rousseau, but Burke was not interested in preserving ‘settled social relationships’ in and of themselves, as anyone who has actually bothered to read more of Burke than a few quotes, would grasp right off.

Using the term ‘Conservative’ as we do, conserving the best of classical liberalism, is not a quirk or innovation of our own here, as indicated by Russell Kirk’s ‘The Conservative Mind’, first published 1953, and btw, Kirk knew a thing or two about Burke as well.

“That is not what 'Conservative' means to most people”Because most people are not very informed about what is and is not so, doesn’t alter the facts of what is and is not so. I rarely use the word ‘Liberal’ in reference to the left, because they have absolutely no right to it, they absconded with it in the early 20th century, after sullying their proper name of ‘progressive’ – a sick joke in itself. The true liberals fled from the democrat party at the time, to the Republican party, and began to have to use the term ‘Classical Liberal’ to distinguish themselves from the posers of the left, but the term was too unwieldy, even then, and ‘Conservative’ as opposed to the broader ‘Republican’, was the one soon settled on, for the reason of conserving the traditions of the classical liberal Founding Fathers of our nation.

Liberal is the noble term for those who support liberty and individual rights, and recognize the free market as the best means of expressing and preserving both. There is nothing Liberal about the leftist democrat party, which is opposed to individual rights at every turn, preferring the power of pressure groups over liberty every step of the way, such as there preference for mandatory union memberships, minimum wages, ‘affirmative action’, speech codes and all the regulatory agencies and regulations and their concomitant corruption endemic to such authoritarianism, that have been choking the life out of this country for over a century.

Well OK then. You make accusations and can't or won't back them up with examples. Instead you resort to content-free insult. Like I said, you people act like threatened monkeys, not rational beings.

Sorry if I put the scare in you. But you have to know that your bullshit theo-politics is going to be rejected, that the targets of your opprobrium will fight back, that you in no way speak for God, reason, humanity, or anything but your own pathetic little selves. I do not claim to know God's politics, but I'm fairly confident that it does not include the sort of hatemongering you find here.

Even more than you equivocate, you evade, like a roach scared of the light.

I've asked several times for your thoughts on rights, property rights, why it is ok for the left (or right) to violate those, morality, truth, etc, and you've not answered any one of them. You only evade the issues, probably because you've never given them any thought beyond your bogey man level conception of the 'right' and how to shout it down.

Unlike yourself, I've actually thought about those issues and more, and put much of it up on my site for anyone to see, criticize or argue with me on, whereas on your's there is nothing but your sniping and juvenile insults which you somehow seem to think makes you look ... what... mature?

To quote that cosmic philosopher, Buzz Lightyear, "You are a sad, strange little man, and you have my pity. Farewell".

Van: "You are a sad, strange little man, and you have my pity. Farewell".Of course, when Buzz Lightyear said that, he was delusional and rejecting Woody's attempts to bring him to reality. I'll quote his response: "Good riddance, ya loony!".

I’m pretty sure Empty is Ray…since Empty seems to have adopted Ray’s policy from the get go: Ray doesn’t acknowledge anything I say anymore *sniff*And these are damn good jokes!Not that I’m complaining, mind you – that would be a Ray thing too (as in, missing the point).

Links to this post:

About Me

Location: Floating in His Cloud-Hidden Bobservatory, Inside the Centers for Spiritual Disease Control and Pretension, Tonga

Who spirals down the celestial firepole on wings of slack, seizes the wheel of the cosmic bus, and embarks upin a bewilderness adventure of higher nondoodling? Who, haloed be his gnome, loiters on the threshold of the transdimensional doorway, looking for handouts from Petey? Who, with his doppelgägster and testy snideprick, Cousin Dupree, wields the pliers and blowtorch of fine insultainment for the ridicure of assouls? Who is the gentleman loaffeur who yoinks the sword from the stoned philosopher and shoves it in the breadbasket of metaphysical ignorance and tenure? Whose New Testavus for the Restavus blows the locked doors of the empyrean off their rusty old hinges and sheds a beam of intense darkness on the world enigma? Who is the Biggest Fakir of the Vertical Church of God Knows What, channeling the roaring torrent of 〇 into the feeble stream of cyberspace? Who is the masked pandit who lobs the first water balloon out the motel window at the annual Raccoon convention? Who is your nonlocal partner in disorganized crimethink? Shut your mouth! But I'm talkin' about bʘb! Then we can dig it!